At some point once the multi-button UIs and drivers are done I’m sure varied emitter tint lights with tint ramping will be a thing. Its already a reality with the Zanflare T1 (despite the obvious differences there), I dont see any reason it couldn’t be done in a regular flashlight other than some possible weird beam profile.

Like the Jetbeam FL-12? It essentially ramps the two different LEDs up/down inversely to control output from 3000k to 5500k.

FWIW, the Viltrox L116T is a nice high-CRI light panel which can be powered by a wall adapter and mounted on a gooseneck thingy or tripod. It adjusts from 3300K to 5600K in 100K increments, and stays below the BBL the entire time.

Not everyone is aware that there used to be some flashlights controlled by Bluetooth a few years back. You could remotely turn the light on and off, adjust the brightness, change the settings such as strobe rate, the number of brightness levels, have “dico” mode, etc… It seems pretty cool, but the one light that I’m thinking of didn’t actually sell very well because the flashlight itself was not very good. Then you have the problem of the company needing to keep the app updated. Eventually you’ll lose the ability to control the light through the Bluetooth and then you’re stuck with a really expensive regular flashlight. Even in 2019, I’m not sure there is a market for Bluetooth controlled flashlights.

I believe the solution is standardization. If there’s common BT API that’s used by many different lights and any app can control any light – the problems with manufacturer stopping updates is gone.
Now…maybe there is such standard already, just designed for a different class of lights? Smart light bulbs for example?

No. No one UI. Use one way to talk with Bluetooth controllers, so any compatible controller knows how to turn on any compatible light. Or how to dim it down etc. The light can have any UI. So can the controller.

And not all of them – just enough to not have to fear about the standard dying out.

If you want a standardized bluetooth interface which isn’t likely to die out, about the only way that can happen is to make an open-source driver with open-source firmware, get a couple brands to use it, and find someone willing to keep companion apps updated on several platforms. It might be doable within a year or two if someone was motivated enough to do it.

For now though, I’m mostly just trying to get companies on board with the idea of working with the community, and building a common firmware platform which supports a variety of hardware and a variety of user interfaces. Basically, trying to make it possible to do with flashlights what we do with computers — let the users mix and match hardware and software as desired.

If you want a standardized bluetooth interface which isn’t likely to die out, about the only way that can happen is to make an open-source driver with open-source firmware, get a couple brands to use it, and find someone willing to keep companion apps updated on several platforms. It might be doable within a year or two if someone was motivated enough to do it.

For now though, I’m mostly just trying to get companies on board with the idea of working with the community, and building a common firmware platform which supports a variety of hardware and a variety of user interfaces. Basically, trying to make it possible to do with flashlights what we do with computers — let the users mix and match hardware and software as desired.

That’s really cool. A working prototype is a big step forward. There’s still a lot more to the process for making a widely-used standard, though. With the code and schematics and stuff, and some motivated people, we could probably find ways to fit it into smaller hosts and extend the functionality and get it into lights by multiple companies.

Something I’d personally love to see is a USB-capable or bluetooth-capable bootloader which can be used to flash firmware over a fast and universal connection. This would enable all sorts of fun things.

For a little while, I toyed with the idea of flashing over the “optic nerve”, but it would take a couple hours and the link only goes one direction, so it wouldn’t be able to correct errors. Very inconvenient and risky. Bluetooth or USB would be a lot faster and safer.

That’s really cool. A working prototype is a big step forward. There’s still a lot more to the process for making a widely-used standard, though. With the code and schematics and stuff, and some motivated people, we could probably find ways to fit it into smaller hosts and extend the functionality and get it into lights by multiple companies.

Something I’d personally love to see is a USB-capable or bluetooth-capable bootloader which can be used to flash firmware over a fast and universal connection. This would enable all sorts of fun things.

For a little while, I toyed with the idea of flashing over the “optic nerve”, but it would take a couple hours and the link only goes one direction, so it wouldn’t be able to correct errors. Very inconvenient and risky. Bluetooth or USB would be a lot faster and safer.

Yes, it isn’t the end, but I think it’s a good beginning. With, as you said before, some open source hardware and firmware, it could grow bigger, faster. What do you mean about the bootloader? Are you talking about a bootloader in the flashlight?

—

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

It’s early days yet. Pogo pin connections are a start, allowing a “bare metal” re-flash.

Putting a bootloader into the MCU, whilst obviously possible, would just be a waste of space and resources, of no utility to the vast majority of consumers who would never use it, nor want it, nor even know how. And adding cost. Nevermind the complication of adding USB or Bluetooth connectivity.

These are just torches. They should not be over-complicated, just because it is possible.

Easily turned on and off-able is my test, combined with handing them to “muggles” to see how they manage.

Even I need crib sheets to understand some none-intuitive BLF stuff, I cannot retain all of it in memory, and no, my brain is still pretty sharp. It may make perfect sense to the designers, but, practically, a lot of it is unused/unusable. I like to play around with new things like all of us, but after a while determine a configuration that suits me, and never change it afterwards.

Configurability, and personal choice is great, but is it actually necessary, or worthwhile, in such a simple basic device as a torch ?

Frankly I think that some of the people developing code might contribute to the greater good better, if they applied their talents instead to e.g. 3D printing, CNC control, and other such useful stuff.

As for the hardware designers, ploughing the same old furrows, no real innovation, well, if it still works for them and their customers, so be it. The clever ones are probably too busy in their day jobs to be distracted with trivial things such as torch drivers.

I think that I have reached “peak torch”, and don’t have a use, or a want, never-mind a need, for much more.

You can get plenty of head-torches where you just have to wave your hand in front.

Thought control ? well that might be coming.

So little innovation actually happening here.

E.G. an “Ultimate” lantern that doesn’t even have a PIR motion detector to turn it on. And off.

Never-mind any sort of remote control. Bluetooth, WiFi, even just a dedicated keyfob.

Even my Poundland selfie stick came with a bluetooth remote button that works. Coin cell included. For £1.00

Meanwhile the discussion there still seems to be all about USB C vs. micro.

And how the battery-bank output is so difficult. Again, I can go to Poundland and buy one there, that even includes a poor 18650, for £1.00, and works very well. Boosts up my ‘phone nicely, when required.

It’s early days yet. Pogo pin connections are a start, allowing a “bare metal” re-flash.

Putting a bootloader into the MCU, whilst obviously possible, would just be a waste of space and resources, of no utility to the vast majority of consumers who would never use it, nor want it, nor even know how. And adding cost. Nevermind the complication of adding USB or Bluetooth connectivity.

These are just torches. They should not be over-complicated, just because it is possible.

Easily turned on and off-able is my test, combined with handing them to “muggles” to see how they manage.

Even I need crib sheets to understand some none-intuitive BLF stuff, I cannot retain all of it in memory, and no, my brain is still pretty sharp. It may make perfect sense to the designers, but, practically, a lot of it is unused/unusable. I like to play around with new things like all of us, but after a while determine a configuration that suits me, and never change it afterwards.

Configurability, and personal choice is great, but is it actually necessary, or worthwhile, in such a simple basic device as a torch ?

Frankly I think that some of the people developing code might contribute to the greater good better, if they applied their talents instead to e.g. 3D printing, CNC control, and other such useful stuff.

As for the hardware designers, ploughing the same old furrows, no real innovation, well, if it still works for them and their customers, so be it. The clever ones are probably too busy in their day jobs to be distracted with trivial things such as torch drivers.

I think that I have reached “peak torch”, and don’t have a use, or a want, never-mind a need, for much more.

Remote control of lights is useful. And once you get BT you enter security nightmare. Firmware upgrade is a necessary but deeply insufficient band aid.